Desper v. Ponton

Fourth Circuit

Desper v. Ponton

521 F. App'x 231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2013

DocketNo. 13-6211

StatusPublished

This text of 521 F. App'x 231 (Desper v. Ponton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Desper v. Ponton, 521 F. App'x 231 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Paul Desper appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider its order entering summary judgment against his civil rights action, which proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Sossamon v. Texas, — U.S. -, 181 S.Ct. 1651, 1663, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011); Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186, 189 (4th Cir.2009). See also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir.2006); In re Long Tenn Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated, as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 468-69 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Paul Desper appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider its order entering summary judgment against his civil rights action, which proceeded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Sossamon v. Texas, — U.S. -, 181 S.Ct. 1651, 1663, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011); Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 186, 189 (4th Cir.2009). See also Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir.2006); In re Long Tenn Admin. Segregation of Inmates Designated, as Five Percenters, 174 F.3d 464, 468-69 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

AFFIRMED.

In Re Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters. Alexander Mickle, Donnathian Grant, Ameed Stevenson, Shaleek Azeem, Antonio Roach, Fountain Wise Allah, Von Huggins, James Hughes, Lord Musa God Allah, Equality King Supreme Allah, Wayne Hemingway, Kironda Haynes, James Zimmerman, Prince Hughes, Milton Dozier, Gregory Moment, Clarence Carter, Raheem Malik Shabazz, Tejie White, Grover Lumpkin, Booker Williams, Wayne Samuels, Charvell Douglas, Elijah Smith, Quinta Parker, Tony Addison, Maurice Jacques, Leroy Smalls, Edward Washington, Larry Nelson, Derrick Dunbar, Ralph Davis, Brittie Cooke, Leroy Brice, Jermaine Dillard, Lord Shameal Allah, James Harrington, Tyrone Mitchell, Albert Jones, David Cross, Maurice Edwards, John Frazier v. Michael Moore, Commissioner William Catoe, Deputy Director for Operations, South Carolina Department of Corrections Kenneth D. McKellar Director of Security, South Carolina Department of Corrections in Their Official and Individual Capacities, and Scdc

174 F.3d 464 (Fourth Circuit, 1999)

Leroy A. Lovelace v. Jack Lee Gene Shinault K. Lester

472 F.3d 174 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)

Rendelman v. Rouse

569 F.3d 182 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Sossamon v. Texas

179 L. Ed. 2d 700 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F. App'x 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desper-v-ponton-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack